Parikh (Migration)

This matter concerned a review of a decision not to grant a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600, to the applicant. The applicant had lodged her application after her last substantive visa had ceased. The applicant's case was heard in conjunction with her husband's separate review concerning the same circumstances. Both parties had returned to their home countries but were represented in Australia by their son.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for the grant of the visa, specifically cl 600.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). This clause requires an applicant who does not hold a substantive visa at the time of application to satisfy Schedule 3 criteria, including criterion 3004. Criterion 3004 necessitates the Minister being satisfied that the applicant's failure to hold a substantive visa was due to factors beyond their control, that there are compelling reasons for granting the visa, and that the applicant has substantially complied with visa conditions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy criterion 3004. While the applicant's son claimed to have been advised by a department officer to apply for a bridging visa followed by a substantive visa, the Tribunal noted the lack of clear memory and verifiable evidence regarding this advice. Even if the son's account were accepted, the Tribunal held that the applicant remained responsible for lodging her application in a timely manner. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it was unnecessary to consider whether there were compelling reasons for granting the visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Visitor (Class FA) visa.